Author
Topic: The Issues (Read 1013 times)

This is the thread for discussing The Issues. The Issues are the underlying ideas, needs, and desires, and models for how we want our world to function. Here we discuss who should be taxed, not whois being taxed. How healthcare could work, not about how Obamacare is doing. We talk about the ideas, not the politicians. We don't talk about who we should kill, but why we should kill. Avoid all real world examples as much as can be expected.

I figured out why I find the modern politics thread and 2016 thread boring, because it is rarely about The Issues. When placed before The Issues, it really doesn't matter who wins elections, we cannot make decisions until we decide what elements of The Issues really matter. Hypothetical conjectures are welcome, academic support is appreciated but not required, and the drinks are on the house (Your house, where ever you live). Drop by any time you want to share a view of how something should work.

This is a meek request that I do not expect to be followed, but I must try to make the request. Do not get angry. Do not attack each other. Everyone is allowed to disagree with everyone else. The Issues are all that matter.

This thread is politics separated from the circus of real world events. As such, I expect it to be buried in short order. Feel free to resurrect it, future reader, and share with us how you believe glorbsnargles should be frimfram to all blikspans that can splorch a durdok.

I am going to start with education. I feel that elementary education should be uniform and strictly regulated. So much of who we are are built up at the primary age to let it be determined by whim. To give a choice is to create differences in knowledge and understanding, which I think would be detrimental.

But sincerely, why stop there? If an unbiased primary/elementary education is important, surely secondary and tertiary education when students actually start to form nuanced and reasoned opinions about the world is even more important.

I don't think uni level education should be standardised. For sure there should be some means by which you can compare the quality of universities and allow people to judge what level of qualification you have (all of which we obviously have already). But having some sort of higher education curriculum that's analogous to a school curriculum is madness and really would just get in the way of the lecturers and researchers trying to do their jobs even more.

I don't think uni level education should be standardised. For sure there should be some means by which you can compare the quality of universities and allow people to judge what level of qualification you have (all of which we obviously have already). But having some sort of higher education curriculum that's analogous to a school curriculum is madness and really would just get in the way of the lecturers and researchers trying to do their jobs even more.

I won't disagree with any of that. But my vaguer point still stands: in a perfect world, why shouldn't education be strictly standardised beyond the primary level? It's not like Secondary Schools are carrying out world leading research.

I don't know what the system is like in America but in the UK obviously we have a national curriculum up to secondary level. Also I believe there are certain standards universities have to meet but I'm assuming they're a lot more relaxed than they are for secondary schools.

I don't know what the system is like in America but in the UK obviously we have a national curriculum up to secondary level. Also I believe there are certain standards universities have to meet but I'm assuming they're a lot more relaxed than they are for secondary schools.

What I'm really saying is to IB or not to IB instead of choosing A Levels.

I am going to start with education. I feel that elementary education should be uniform and strictly regulated. So much of who we are are built up at the primary age to let it be determined by whim. To give a choice is to create differences in knowledge and understanding, which I think would be detrimental.

Well President Wizard, what specifically do you plan to do about the thousands of failing inner-city schools that are the reason America isn't meeting its own standards for education?

Let's get the terminology straight before the UK people take over completely. When you say elementary you mean elementary school, kindergarten - 5th grade, right? not K-12?

Do you have in mind a set curriculum, not standards to meet? That's the impression I get. Could schools do supplemental stuff, go above the standard? Would this apply to private schools too or could they do their own thing?

Do you have in mind a set curriculum, not standards to meet? That's the impression I get. Could schools do supplemental stuff, go above the standard? Would this apply to private schools too or could they do their own thing?

Private schools ultimately shouldn't exist. The debate over whether access to education should or shouldn't be determined by parent wealth is a whole other basket of apples, but if the goal is to have every single school up to the same standard then private schools need to be thrown out completely. But as lurk said, the problem in education isn't Professor Xavier's School for Gifted Billionaires, it's poorer public schools that physically cannot function because they have no money, the teachers only care about meeting targets, and the students either don't want to be there or can't learn because of students disrupting lessons because they don't want to be there.

I think the point of this thread is to be a bit idealistic and hypothetical, so I don't think the conversation is going to be about how to fix things or make changes, so much as what we would want things to look like.

I don't think I agree with the idea that private schools shouldn't exist. Sure, ideally public schools would be so great that parents wouldn't be interested in another option, but throwing out options like private schools seems almost a freedom of association thing.

What about home schooling?

How much uniformity are we talking about? Take local history, by definition if the class touches on that it's going to vary from place to place. How much leeway would teachers have with the curriculum? I think some teachers would burn out if they have to do everything by the book instead of putting their own spin on things.

I know a lot of teachers, some at struggling schools, some not. The biggest overall complaint is the amount of testing. It isn't so much that meeting targets is the only thing teachers care about, it's that it's the primary thing emphasized. And with struggling schools lack of resources can definitely be a problem, but what I've heard is that students are coming from dysfunctional homes and there's a lack of parent involvement and interest. Extra funding and excellent, caring teachers can only go so far if community support is lacking and kids go home to horrible environments.

Are we done with the education topic for now? How about a little crime and punishment?

Should the focus of incarceration be punishment or rehabilitation? What is our goal and what should it be?

It's a conversation the US should have because we aren't really sure. We kind of have both in mind but it's haphazard. I think we lean more towards the punishment side, especially, I'm sure our european friends will say, compared to the rest of the developed world.

I'm not entirely sure what I think about it. Stuff like drug possession and use should get the rehab route. Major traffickers though, more the punishment side. Maybe some kind of two track or multiple track system, depending on the harm done and the intent. I absolutely get the desire for the punishment angle, though. This isn't the place to go into details but there's at least one case in mind where someone got an appallingly short sentence.